Suzanne Hoekstra1, Diane Stoller1, Haya Raef2. 1. Mercy Hospital, Breast Care Specialists of Maine, Portland, ME, USA. 2. Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine if Gross Margin Examination reduces margin re-excision rate. Our institutional practice is to perform Gross Margin Examination (GME) with Real-time re-excision (RRE) for all breast conservation specimens with Invasive Carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chart review was done to determine if this practice is helpful. 51 CALLER charts were reviewed from December 2016 to December 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-three underwent margin RRE based on the GME. 11 had cancer in the re-resected margin, 6 of which were cleared with the RRE. The other 5 were reoperated on to clear the margin because on final pathology a margin other than the re-resected margin was positive for malignancy. GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 55%. None of the remaining 22 patients receiving were found to have a positive margin on final pathology, with 1.6 margins on average re-resected. 13/18 patients did not have RRE and had a final clear margin, but of the other 5, final margin was positive for DCIS in 2 and Invasive Cancer in 3. GME missed invasive disease at the margin in 3 of these 18 patients. CONCLUSION: GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 6 of 11 patients who would have had a positive margin. However, this resulted in the unnecessary removal of additional normal breast tissue in 22 patients. 3 patients' positive margins were missed with GME and required reoperation. 13 patients were able to avoid re-excision and 11 were able to clear their margin in real-time, improving outcomes 24/51 patients. GME therefore does appear useful.
OBJECTIVE: Determine if Gross Margin Examination reduces margin re-excision rate. Our institutional practice is to perform Gross Margin Examination (GME) with Real-time re-excision (RRE) for all breast conservation specimens with Invasive Carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chart review was done to determine if this practice is helpful. 51 CALLER charts were reviewed from December 2016 to December 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-three underwent margin RRE based on the GME. 11 had cancer in the re-resected margin, 6 of which were cleared with the RRE. The other 5 were reoperated on to clear the margin because on final pathology a margin other than the re-resected margin was positive for malignancy. GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 55%. None of the remaining 22 patients receiving were found to have a positive margin on final pathology, with 1.6 margins on average re-resected. 13/18 patients did not have RRE and had a final clear margin, but of the other 5, final margin was positive for DCIS in 2 and Invasive Cancer in 3. GME missed invasive disease at the margin in 3 of these 18 patients. CONCLUSION: GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 6 of 11 patients who would have had a positive margin. However, this resulted in the unnecessary removal of additional normal breast tissue in 22 patients. 3 patients' positive margins were missed with GME and required reoperation. 13 patients were able to avoid re-excision and 11 were able to clear their margin in real-time, improving outcomes 24/51 patients. GME therefore does appear useful.
Authors: M A Molina; S Snell; D Franceschi; M Jorda; C Gomez; F L Moffat; J Powell; E Avisar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joerg Heil; Kathrin Breitkreuz; Michael Golatta; Elena Czink; Julia Dahlkamp; Joachim Rom; Florian Schuetz; Maria Blumenstein; Geraldine Rauch; Christof Sohn Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Edward Robert St John; Rashed Al-Khudairi; Hutan Ashrafian; Thanos Athanasiou; Zoltan Takats; Dimitri John Hadjiminas; Ara Darzi; Daniel Richard Leff Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344